HadleyB at 3:17 PM March 15, 2013
The truly amazing thing is that the LA Times is rooting for the very people who never read their paper, never go to a bookstore, never go to operas, never listen to classical music, never watch ballet, never do mountain climbing, never go bicycling, hiking, camping, nothing.
They are rooting for people who will oust them and replace their rag with a bunch of flea market shoppers with article after article about the latest keensayanyera party with lots of big ads for 23 inch rims and boombox cars.
Their schools have collapsed under the Mexican/Asian/Africa burden. Fifty years ago CA schools were third from the top. Now they are third from the bottom. Their emergency rooms have been shuttering their doors for decades. Their pensions are non-existent. People are fleeing their state (including Mexicans in search of better benefits elsewhere and safety from Mexican gangs).
And yet they still keep doubling down. “Double or nothing, double or nothing!” Year after year, with all the social systems now in full cardiac arrest, their cry is still, “Double or nothing!”
And now this volley from Bill McKibben, an East Coast Puritan, for heaven’s sake. It’s so bad they can’t find a single Californian to pimp the wonderful benefits of race replacement and white expulsion.
What is the final event, I wonder, that will pry their heads up from their Holy Scripture of Multiculturalism?

My contribution:

jabowery at 09:04 AM March 16, 2013
You have 3 years to move to a place that has put your political theories to the test.

I’m wondering whether this is the right idiom to put in place or whether to go for it and try to get people using the word “sortocracy” as in “the big sort” It seems that people are so desperate to take some kind of action that the above “judgement” handed down, very publicly, might not be the better tactic for memetic virality.

In any event, even if “race replacement” hasn’t entered into the discourse, at this point it may be too late for that kind of rhetorical tactic.

Moreover, going after Steve Sailer for being insufficiently in-your-face about naming the Jew is, in this environment, a distraction.

People need working rhetorical wepons and that means they must put the fear of God into the hypocrites first and foremost—because the hypocrites are the “protein coat” behind which the true master parasites hide themselves from society’s immune antibodies.

“You have 3 years to move to a place that has put your political theories to the test”

BTW, I think Sailer is someone who might be somewhat uncomfortable with “sortocracy” type ideas. I’ve been commenting on Sailer’s blog for years, and the comments of mine that he has consistently censored and not published have been those expressing “extreme” free association sentiment. None of the comments have been profane or mean spirited. I think he may be somewhat uncomfortable because he seems to have an affinity for Jews. He has said that he may be part-Jewish and does seem to identify somewhat with them. He also seems to have an affinity for non-European Caucasians.

I don’t think he’s a bad guy or anything nor am I chastising him for being insufficiently “extreme” or anything.

The only thing “extreme” about sortocracy is its compassion for humans. If Sailer is actually opposed to people creating environments for the rearing of their children with those sharing their strongly held beliefs—even if that means excluding people like Sailer or people of whom Sailer is fond—then Sailer doesn’t qualify as human in any rightful sense.

However, I suspect the real problem with Sailer isn’t that he would object to there being boundaries with sufficient continence as to secure from contamination such environments so much as he would object to what may be necessary to institute such continence—basically killing off huge numbers of people in wars for independence from governments that cannot tolerate being unable to molest the minds and bodies of children and adolescents. Sailer may even ‘get’ that there is an undeclared war being waged with its aggression taking on the color of law and neglect of law, but is afraid that reactions to this undeclared war may be worse than simply being slowly exterminated. What guys like Sailer don’t seem to get is that there is a huge difference between reacting to aggression and proacting to institute sortocracy since the latter has a declared termination of violence: Once the pseudo-humans are no longer in a position to impede sortocracy.

Yes, I think you’re right. I think Sailer is uncomfortable with “extreme” sortocracy or free association, but would intellectually assent to it if pressed. But like you said, he may be inclined to object to the means that may actually be necessary to put sortocracy into practice.

However, I suspect the real problem with Sailer isn’t that he would object to there being boundaries with sufficient continence as to secure from contamination such environments so much as he would object to what may be necessary to institute such continence—basically killing off huge numbers of people in wars for independence from governments that cannot tolerate being unable to molest the minds and bodies of children and adolescents.Sailer may even ‘get’ that there is an undeclared war being waged with its aggression taking on the color of law and neglect of law, but is afraid that reactions to this undeclared war may be worse than simply being slowly exterminated. What guys like Sailer don’t seem to get is that there is a huge difference between reacting to aggression and proacting to institute sortocracy since the latter has a declared termination of violence: Once the pseudo-humans are no longer in a position to impede sortocracy. (JB)

YES.

That’s the issue. What is more important: preventing the extinction of the white race, or preventing the deaths of some number of the enemy which refuses to allow white preservationists to peacefully secede, racially cleanse our own territory (as humanely as possible), and live in peace with our neighboring countries, but ‘ourselves alone’? [Once we’ve achieved the ethnostate we can start worrying about all the other normal matters of public policy, like the proper mix between capitalism and welfare, or industry and environment, or the religious content of education, military service requirements, criminal punishments, etc.]

Next year I have to select my dissertation topic (as a formal matter, although I’ve been moving in that direction from the beginning of my program). I’ve been vacillating between two areas of specialization: 1) the legitimacy of secular loyalty, or 2) Just War Theory. Both are, in my mind, related to the racial struggle. The former basically addresses the issue of whether it is allowable, or even appropriate, for Christians to have loyalties (eg, to nation and race) in addition to the primary attachment to Christ (the answer may seem obvious, as a matter of ‘commonsense’, to a secularist, but theologically, it isn’t). The latter, in my hands (it’s a big topic with many sub-topics, obviously), concerns the conditions under which violent insurrection is morally legitimate, at least as a general matter (later, post-grad, I would develop my dissertation into an extended examination into whether specifically white insurrection, under present conditions, especially in the USA, is allowable).

To me, this is the very heart of the theoretical WN project. Of course, for atheists this shouldn’t be an issue. I doubt the very possibility of atheist morality - and I absolutely, beyond a doubt, reject the concept of atheist interracial morality. For the atheist WN, other races have no value, and considerable negative value. Would anyone seriously object to the extermination of the world’s cockroaches, termites, sewer rats, pigeons, poison ivy, barracuda, etc? Would whites not honestly be better off on a planet without nonwhites?

For the Christian, however, each human being, regardless of race, is made in the Imago Dei, and thus possesses at least some value (note: not equal value - Christianity is emphatically not an egalitarian religion). To take another life, or even to advocate for conditions (eg, war and other types of group conflict) in which lives can be expected to be destroyed or ruined, is not ‘a priori’ impermissible, but the standard of allowability is very high. I strongly intuit that whites, as a community and a race, do indeed have a moral right to exist, and that they even have a moral right to demand that others aid their survival (by, eg, non-violently removing their alien presences from our communal lands), as well as to inflict measured violence on them if they do not.

But in Christian terms, this hypothesized ‘right’ is not textually obvious, and, as a practical matter, most (all?) Christian thinkers would say that slow white extinction, as long as it is ‘environmental’, a self-inflicted result of particular public policies and social arrangements, and not deliberate (in the sense of alien forces actually murdering whites in order to colonize themselves on the whites’ property, as in rural Rhodesia today), is indeed to be morally preferred to murderously resisting that extinction.

I disagree, and developing the justification for my disagreement will constitute my main life’s work for the rest of my life.

Haller, it’s also quite possible that the Sailers simply don’t trust racial animals like you. Sure, today you’re advocating separation and secession and withdrawing into a racial ethnostate, but you’ve been forced into it by circumstances. It’s gruesomely easy to imagine a Leon Haller one hundred years ago chomping at the bit to destroy other races. Really, if you need ‘God’ to tell you that that would be rather cruel I have to question your sanity. (WN’s, if you judge them by their language, truly are some of the most insane people in the world—their racial revulsion seems to thoroughly warp their minds—so it wouldn’t come as a complete shock to learn you’re just a more eloquent version of the usual nutter, despite your numerous protests to the contrary.)

For the atheist WN, other races have no value, and considerable negative value.

It’s not certain that all WNs feel that way about other races. The argument that a white who likes his race and wants it to live on and prosper must necessarily see no value in any other race doesn’t have a leg to stand on. It’s incredible and very, very telling that you’d even imagine this to be true.

Rich,

Sailer has posted comments of mine supportive of official ‘segregation’ and separation (of various sorts) on more than one occasion, fwiw.

Bill McKibben lives in Vermont (I believe the northern part of the state), which along with the rest of New England north of Boston area, is the “whitest” region in the U.S. today. This part of New England is even more white than the inland parts of the Pacific Northwest.

Its likely that McKibben has not even visited SoCal in recent years and may, indeed, be completely unaware of the lack of interest in environmental issues on the part of Latin American immigrants into the U.S.

The environmentalism that McKibben espouses in books like “Enough” is specifically a product of the Germanic Romantic movement of the late 19th century. The rest of the world (non-Western) does not share these beliefs at all. The rest of the world wants clean air and water, and efforts are being made even in places like Mexico and China to reduce industrial pollution. However, the romanticism of nature itself is completely non-existent in these cultures. Either McKibben is unaware of this or chooses to ignore this reality.